Does a fictional personality and personal history grafted on to an actual historical person constitute real existence for the fictional personality? I'm not sure.
Jews of the Jarusalem/Nazareth area of 2000 years ago were a lot darker than the europeanised modern Jews of the last 1,500 years. They had a much more Egyptian/Nubian influence back then. Not 'black' as we would think of now though. A Jewish burial, dated to pretty much exactly the same time as when Jesus was alive ws found and reconstructed back in the 1990's.
Jesus was not black. He was of Semitic stock and probably would've looked far differently than Western art depicts him (more like a modern Arab). Like most men of his time, he was probably not very tall--a little over 5 feet--and may have had short hair. His appearance would not have made him stand out in a crowd; indeed, Judas had to point him out among his disciples. Blonde-haired and blue-eyed Jesuses are the result of artistic license.
While I find the "Jesus myth" theories interesting, ultimately they have to be weighed against the evidence of Jesus' existence. The fact that we know other characters in the Gospels existed (John the Baptist, Caiphas, Pontius Pilate) suggests that the stories aren't wholly invented. That Paul existed seems beyond reasonable doubt and, though he had no contact with Jesus (a living one, anyway ), he does purport to have met Peter, James, and other people who had known Jesus.
Well, considering that 1) there's no agreed upon definition of what a historical jesus even means, and 2) even with any of the non-agreed upon definitions there's literally no evidence whatsoever that Jesus existed, so what? Jesus isn't Buddha, nor is Jesus Mohammad. Jesus is Moses, and Jesus is Abraham, and Jesus is Hercules. Besides, once you strip the religious woo-woo from the Jesus story, and further strip the irrelevant color, and further strip the historical claims from the bible that are known to be false--i.e. the bible claims Jesus was born in a location that was completely unpopulated and unnamed at the time of his alleged birth--there's not enough left to be able to identify a historical Jesus, making the concept pretty much incoherent. Jesus, more properly transliterated as Joshua, was an exceedingly common Jewish name at the time, and wannabe messiahs were a dime-a-dozen 2000 years ago in Jerusalem. If you define a historical Jesus in a way such that it's possible that he existed and that doesn't exclude irrelevant variations, the question of his existence is like asking 2000 years from now whether John Smith, born in the year 1960, a government employee, with no further identifying information, was a fictional character. [edit] It's also pretty important that Jesus isn't just alleged to be a prophet/huckster; he's alleged to be the son of god whose death and resurrection were payment for mankind's sins, and those are his critical identifying characteristics. If you strip the religious woo-woo from the Jesus story, Jesus ends up not being important to christianity at all. Without Jesus's woo-woo, Paul is the figure of potential historical interest if you want to understand the origins of christianity, because without the woo-woo it just doesn't matter whether or not Jesus existed.[/edit]
Perhaps, to a certain extent, but if so, so what? The authors of the New testament existed? Well, duh. They put in names of a few known major figures to puff up the importance of their story? Standard of practice for religious fiction. There was a preacher preaching christianity before the stories got written down and he's written into the story under a name that may or may not be his? Sorry, but there's no there there. The Jesus story is written exactly as it would be if Jesus were an entirely fictional creation of Paul (or a predecessor of his) or based very loosely on an amalgam of personalities.
Does that sniveling little passive-aggressive coward even post anymore outside of the rep box? I don't think he has enough cojones... Waiting for Jamie to neg-rep me in 5...4...3...
Certainly a minimialist version would be: a preacher who was called Yeshua, who was the center of a religious movement, who was executed by the Romans, and who was eventually worshipped by people who joined the movement. The Gospels--even though they have a theological objective--do seem to have some historical validity. As I said, we know that John the Baptist, Caiphas, and Pontius Pilate were all real, and we don't have much evidence for any of them apart from what's in the Gospels. Strip out the supernatural and the overtly theological sections and quite a lot still remains. I'd argue we know as much about Jesus as we do Socrates, and there's little doubt that Socrates was a real person. But very few founded movements that survived them. The question is simple: did such a person exist or not? There may have been many Yeshuas and there may have been many John Smiths, but that's irrelevent. The question is: does any of them correspond to the person written about in an historical text? Those are theological claims and innovations. As important as they are to Christianity, they don't matter much to the historian trying to determine whether Jesus actually existed. The HISTORICAL Jesus is not important. But Christianity is NOT history. If one wants to understand the theological evolution of Christianity, Paul is indeed very important. But, even with his original philosophy much corrupted/revised in transmission, Jesus still remains the person at the center of Christianity. And the emergence of so influential worldview from such humble beginnings will ALWAYS be of interest to historians.
They put those names in because they are important real life facts and their inclusion serves certain purposes. The earliest Gospel was written within living memory of the crucifixion, so an interested party could've inquired into the events described. Although we have criticisms of Christianity from early in its history (Celsus, for example), none of them (to my knowledge) asserts that Jesus did not actually exist. Maybe. But apply Occam's Razor. Is it more likely a story was written containing real people, references to real places, etc. to revere a real man, or one who never existed? We're not talking about someone writing up a blog; we're talking about creating an important theological document in a time when most people couldn't even read. I don't read it that way. I read the Gospels as a loose history of events (probably corrupted by being orally relayed for a couple of decades) infused with later (and ever-evolving) theological messages. Mark's story is closest to the facts; Matthew's plays up Jewish prophecy; Luke excuses the Romans and presents a more universalist Jesus; John has totally drunk Paul's special Kool-Aid and Jesus is now the message instead of the messenger. If Paul is real, then Paul's letters (at least those authentically attributable to him) are real. If they are, then the Jerusalem Church was real and so were Peter and James. If Peter and James were real, then Jesus was.
Since you're derailing anyway..... 1. You might want to bone up on the definition of "passive-aggressive" (Here's a hint....the last line of your repwhine was a pretty good example, nutjob) . 2. I know you define your existence based on the brave deeds and hard-won battles you've fought in internet forums, but for those of us not interested in stalking hot college students with lines from dopey 80's comedies while alternately plumbing the depths of "creepy" with vivid, uncomfortably detailed, personal TMIs, there's nothing courageous (and therefore nothing cowardly) about posting or otherwise interacting at Wordforge. I'm sure when you yammer-on about "cowards" and "bullies" you feel like...... .....but at the end of it all, you're still just...... 3. I'll post when I want to, or not and in lieu rep when I want to, until there's a rule saying I can't. I will not be coerced. Now...isn't there some midget transsexual with whom you're involved whose boots you should be licking?
Who says he's fictional? The bible and the koran may be fantastical, but it doesn't mean that he wasn't based in some form on a real historical person.
